Burzum - Belus

My understanding of the Nazi view towards race boiled down to "germany for germans." I may be completely ignorant as that isn't an are which I have studied in its entirety. Also, the "germany for germans" may have morphed during the course of the war. This I do not know. I do know that the german government for a time loaned jews, of any social class, money which they would pay back once they had "settled" in their new homes. I've read of agreements between a few countries, palestine is the only that currently comes to mind, which were made to take in the jews. The countries that did make these agreements did, after some point in time, go back on them.

What I have understood: there may be truths in Nazism, but when the primary viewpoint is race

Stopped reading here, again.

You know, there's a substantial population of Environmentalists who are hippies. Hippies are scum. Do we say that Environmentalism is bad because it's part of Hippie ideology, and they fuse it with their entire retard worldview? No, we extract whatever good may have come from the Hippie influence and move on. This is the pragmatic ("Nihilistic"?) approach to everything.

Guess who else advocated Environmentalism and Conservationism, as well as mass exodus from cities into the countryside (a "return to nature")?

The Nazis.

Waaaagh pretty much sums it up: the point (whether only officially or not) was to have a (largely) homogenous homeland for the Germans. Nationalsim (and subsequent "racism") wasn't the problem with the Nazi agenda; Imperialism was. As soon as they started taking lands which did not belong, and had never really belonged, to Germans, they were being entirely hypocritical.

Do we say that Environmentalism is bad because it's part of Hippie ideology, and they fuse it with their entire retard worldview? No, we extract whatever good may have come from the Hippie influence and move on.

I'm saying similar things. We do call hippies bad. Nazism and Nazis are similarly bad. No? Pragmatism would not simply be taking the best, but also a rejection of the worst. We see that Nazism leads to nothing, so take what is of value from it and then bury it with other failures. Am I saying something different from the quoted?

Similar is not "the same", and I'm saying you're wrong where we differ. This is called "debate".

In that particular regard, I am saying the same thing. Can you please identify exactly where the disagreement is stemming from?

Quote

A good man who commits one evil deed in his life is automatically evil?

A man who does not then recognize his evil deed as evil is yes, automatically evil. He would not then be a good man.

Quote

Where do we see this?

In history and the world around us. Nothing of value emerges from those who take up the banner of Nazism because the prime motivation is flawed. Do you disagree that it is flawed? That it is negative and pernicious? Is that where the disagreement lies? Something of value could possibly emerge I guess, and if it did it would be accepted.

I know what you mean, I understand pragmatism of New Right. I also think that there is no future in Nazism, I know that it was flawed, not to mention that it is completely discredited today (even if not always its critique is legitimate). As always, I'm doing this for the sake of discussion and clarity and strictness of meanings, ideas and definitions:

Nazism is not that. In fact, everything it touches turns to waste. Once people step into the mindset of viewing life by race-only, all becomes skewed to that obsession.

Is it because of the very idea of National Socialism or because it places people in bitter, defensive and reactionary position (not much back then, it is rather a problem of today)? Because I think that failures you mentioned aren't inherent to idea itself. Yes, people seem to have hard time with its burden and probably they should be deprived of it. But then again, the same problem is with freedom - understanding it is also too much for most of people, which may led some of us into being pro-totalitarian. And to deprive all of us of all of freedom (including in its sane manifestations).

Nazis played that card most as a populists, but I don't find RABID racism (expulsion of Jews, not necessarily extermination, at that point of history is understandable - sorry) as a necessity to fill definition of National Socialism - concept of race should be there but it can be placed with some dignity. After all, books and studies, which inspired inception of that movement, weren't written by Nazis.

Nationalism is a well-defined concept that means one nation is comprised of a single racial-ethnic group, culture, language, customs, heritage, values, etc. All these forces are in unity, compared to the modern idea of disunity, which results in constant internal power struggles.

The Nazis were National Socialists, which meant existing Social Democratic ideals adjusted to a Nationalist context. The problem was that they then took this too far. Instead of creating a healthy cultural transition, they created a dogma that was self-perpetuating, like communism. It drove people past an appreciation of reality to an insane quest. The war was insane because it could not be won as it was created, and that should have been obvious to everyone. It was more of a temper tantrum than anything else.

Further, I think the Holocaust does discredit Nazism a great deal. Relocation to North Africa was possible; even more, using people who hate you to make your own munitions is a stupid idea, as is shown by the high failure rate of German munitions during the war. The only upside of the Holocaust was that it strengthened world Jewry by cutting out the low-hanging fruit in Eastern Europe while promoting the more prosperous, educated and intelligent German Jews.

Israel today is seeing the situation Hitler was in. What do you do with the Palestinians? Relocate. It's the only answer. The world will hate it, but if you do it quickly, it will be forgotten. If you shovel them into ovens, people freak out because of the sheer terror of that situation. I respect how some sheer terror is cosmically necessary, but unnecessary acts are still pointless. Do not fixate on the Other or it eats you up. Relocate.

Which brings me to modern-day "neo-Nazi" and "white nationalist" movements. These are not national socialism; they are Racial Marxist movements that encourage a binary view of the world (white is right, everything else is STOMP AND KILL). They remove quality-control limits on white people, which is a terrible idea, as we've now got too many idiots, liars, cheats, rapists, scumbags, shitheads and fools that we need to weed out. Also, these movements are defensive and passive. In their view, the Jew and African (who are morally bad) somehow control the world, and so all that we can hope for is jobs flipping burgers while we prepare for the ultimate race war (which we will not win). It's brain-breakingly stupid which is why ALMOST ALL of the people in these movements come from broken homes and broken lives, many if not all are alcohol and drug abusers, and they listen to angry pointless two-note music (outside of Absurd and Skrewdriver, there's not much of musical note going on within these circles). Neo-Nazism brings death to whatever it touches because it's a self-hating, self-destructive, hopeless movement. Avoid it like the plague.

Liberalism is the same way, just more insidious and less extreme. (Which cancer would you prefer: one that shows up while it's still stage 1, and so you can remove it, or one that is silent until it's stage 5 and there's nothing to do but dig your ass a grave?)

From my experience, there is one world and one truth that can be logically derived from it. This is the product of nihilism; we strip away all the anthro-centric bias and look at life as it is. There is no inherent truth, and indeed there is no truth that exists; there is only the world, and the order that emerges from it, and the truths we can use to summarize that order. From this, we gain an understanding of time, from that we get cause-effect logic, and from that we get a sense of immense realism.

As a realist, I can never support liberalism, leftism, anarchism, socialism, communism, progressivism or even social goodwill -- these are the same thing, which is a placing of the herd-as-individuals above the individual. I prefer a collective, cooperative goal as expressed in culture.

I will never endorse racism or race-hatred. It's pointless and distracting. It is not activism. It is indulging frustration. Again, nothing but hatred arises from it. Interestingly, this applies equally to ANTIFA and other "anti-racist" groups, who are basically bigots who want an object to beat on that is not protected by social rules. Then again, they're leftists -- see comments above.

Nationalism (self-rule by ethnic-cultural group) is a traditional value of all conservatives. It is also a superior system for human civilization. Each group has its own rules and should keep them. Mass immigration creates overpopulation.

Equality, which is a scheme by the less-equal to take from the more-equal, inevitably and always results in a reversal of natural selection and a less-competent society. You can see the results today. 1940s America was relatively crime-free, intelligent, orderly and genteel. Now we live in a crass dystopia. What intervened? A gradual process of liberalization.

Our solution to these problems is not political dogma but undertaking a cultural revolt and revolt in values. It's already happening. Nationalism is rising world wide, as is conservatism (although I prefer the term rightist, as in morally right and right to power). The liberal nightmare of 1789-2009 is showing its true colors, which are dystopia and internal conflict, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way.

I would prefer that way not to go to Nazism, but a traditional society which brings religion in line with science, science in line with philosophy, enslaves government to culture, removes liars and scumbags, gently repatriates the non-indigenous, and creates the kind of society we see mentioned in the Deep Ecology mission statement:

Quote

We believe that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only as a commodity; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.

We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our activities.

We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

*

The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.

*

The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.

*

Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.

*

Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors.

Nazism is not that. In fact, everything it touches turns to waste. Once people step into the mindset of viewing life by race-only, all becomes skewed to that obsession.

I stopped reading here. What the fuck is this? This anti-Nazism crap is total and utter bollocks, primarily because YOU'RE ONLY FOCUSING ON ONE FUCKING PART OF THEIR PLATFORM. Talk about hypocricy. "Oh, they're racits!!1!1, so we're going to ignore ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that they've ever said or supported".

Let me clarify:

Neo-Nazism views the world through race-only filter.

A successful conservative movement views the world through a filter of unity, which includes but is not limited to race. Heritage, culture, language, customs, values and beliefs must all be aligned. You cannot fix that through race alone. The old-school Nazis understood this but didn't emphasize it enough; it would have taken several generations to re-train the German population.

Nazis played that card most as a populists, but I don't find RABID racism (expulsion of Jews, not necessarily extermination, at that point of history is understandable - sorry) as a necessity to fill definition of National Socialism - concept of race should be there but it can be placed with some dignity. After all, books and studies, which inspired inception of that movement, weren't written by Nazis.

Of course this is true. Race is important. Liberals acknowledge this, which is why it's all they talk about. They're racist against anyone with a race. They want all of you to interbreed so they can use you as new voters.

- Mainstream politics is now explicitly about race and religious conflict which are seen as inherent. It has not yet reached the level of concern about collapse of civilization.- The early black metal albums are good, Filosofem is a mixed bag, Hlidskjalf is good, and then after a brief interlude, the recent ambient albums are good but mixed baggish.

I'd say Varg rocked the world. It just took it two decades to catch up with him.